Beliefs versus resources: a tale of two models of epistemology

Abstract

Compelling evidence, from multiple levels of schooling, suggests that teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about knowledge, knowing, and learning (i.e., epistemologies) play a strong role in shaping their approaches to teaching and learning. Given the importance of epistemologies in science teaching, we as researchers must pay careful attention to how we model them in our work. That is, we must work to explicitly and cogently develop theoretical models of epistemology that account for the learning phenomena we observe in classrooms and other settings. Here, we use interpretation of instructor interview data to explore the constraints and affordances of two models of epistemology common in chemistry and science education scholarship: epistemological beliefs and epistemological resources. Epistemological beliefs are typically assumed to be stable across time and place and to lie somewhere on a continuum from “instructor-centered” (worse) to “student-centered” (better). By contrast, a resources model of epistemology contends that one's view on knowledge and knowing is compiled in-the-moment from small-grain units of cognition called resources. Thus, one's epistemology may change one moment to the next. Further, the resources model explicitly rejects the notion that there is one “best” epistemology, instead positing that different epistemologies are useful in different contexts. Using both epistemological models to infer instructors’ epistemologies from dialogue about their approaches to teaching and learning, we demonstrate that how one models epistemology impacts the kind of analyses possible as well as reasonable implications for supporting instructor learning. Adoption of a beliefs model enables claims about which instructors have “better” or “worse” beliefs and suggests the value of interventions aimed at shifting toward “better” beliefs. By contrast, modeling epistemology as in situ activation of resources enables us to explain observed instability in instructors’ views on knowing and learning, surface and describe potentially productive epistemological resources, and consider instructor learning as refining valuable intuition rather than “fixing” “wrong beliefs”.

“Navigating and Applying Epistemic Integrity” as a Missing Science Practice: Re-envisioning Ethics for Both Undergraduate Chemistry Students and Instructors

“…We recommend instructors exercise caution when evaluating canonical correctness (outcome) versus the productiveness of students’ tentative ideas (process). From our observations, the teacher-centered nature of chemistry pedagogy diminishes exploratory opportunities that legitimize the assets and resources students bring into the classroom. − Especially in the instructional laboratory, there is a persistent culture that values timely completion and leaving early, necessitating more evidence of student chemistry learning is needed to justify related fiscal and labor costs . We encourage instructors to deeply evaluate facets of the chemistry learning experience (e.g., assignments, assessments, and classroom culture) and the underlying values students may infer.…”

Thinking and Learning in Nested Systems: The Individual Level

“…For example, how learners conceptualize knowing, understanding, and learning during an academic task will affect how they act and engage with concepts and ideas. Researchers have identified common epistemological frames (locally coherent cognitive structures that subsume assumptions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired and evaluated, and how it can be used) that influence thinking and learning. , For example, in some situations, learners may view knowledge as a collection of objective facts, which can be transmitted by more knowledgeable others. They will thus likely conceptualize learning as the memorization of information and understanding as the ability to replicate ideas.…”

Self-Reported Limitations in Chemistry Education Research: Providing Specific and Contextualized Limitations Supports Researchers and Practitioners

“…For example, we noted that few articles discussed limitations related to decisions made regarding the guiding framework or theoretical assumptions. Frameworks and theory can shape how researchers interpret data and draw conclusions from their findings, 2,26,27 and thus, future studies should more carefully reflect on the limitations associated with the role of the theory and frameworks. This is especially important as the field continues to move toward embracing interpretivist and Discusses limitations arising from assumptions related to assumptions related to a variable definition, statistics, mathematical model, internal validity/factor structure, etc.…”